Bill Ford Also Thinks EVs Have Become Politicized

[ice-capades]

Bill Ford Also Thinks EVs Have Become Politicized

https://fordauthority.com/2023/10/bill-ford-also-thinks-evs-have-become-politicized/#comments

 

In recent weeks, Ford – along with other automakers – has faced a bit of a lull in terms of demand for some all-electric vehicles, prompting it to push back plans to ramp up global production of those models to two million units annually by 2026 and also cutting a shift at the Rouge Electric Vehicle Center where the Ford F-150 Lightning is built. With the automaker facing a month-long strike by the United Auto Workers (UAW) and much uncertainty surrounding its future EV plants, Ford also recently paused construction at the future BlueOval Battery Park Michigan site, though development by other parties continues. Amid all of this, both CEO Jim Farley and chairman Bill Ford have been quite vocal about all of these issues, with Farley recently calling EVs a “political football” – a notion that Bill Ford essentially repeated in a recent interview with the New York Times.

 

“EV sales are still up 50 percent this year, so sales are growing very fast,” Ford said. “But we’ve also seen a politicization of EVs. Blue states say EVs are great and we need to adopt them as soon as possible for climate reasons. Some of the red states say this is just like the vaccine, and it’s being shoved down our throat by the government, and we don’t want it. I never thought I would see the day when our products were so heavily politicized, but they are.”

 

“The other is prices. Electric vehicles are expensive. We know prices will come down, and as that happens, we will have a bigger ramp-up of EVs. Keep this in mind – the most valuable company that our industry has ever seen is Tesla, and it’s growing. That’s a very instructive point when people say EVs are not desired.”

 

Meanwhile, EVs remain a major sticking point in negotiations with the UAW – which wants to include future plants in its next master contract with the Detroit Big Three automakers – something that GM has agreed to do, while Ford wants to give its as-yet-unhired workforce in those facilities the option to choose for themselves.

Edited October 18, 2023 by ice-capades
Additional Content

[rperez817]

17 minutes ago, ice-capades said:

“EV sales are still up 50 percent this year, so sales are growing very fast,” Ford said.

 

Keep this in mind – the most valuable company that our industry has ever seen is Tesla, and it’s growing. That’s a very instructive point when people say EVs are not desired.”

 

These 2 points from Bill Ford corroborate what Jim Farley said last year about the ongoing transition to BEV.

 

I mean it’s gone so much faster than people think. So much faster than the charging experience. So much faster than the purchase price. So much faster than you would have predicted.

 

Jim Farley could add the phrase "So much faster than the politicization of BEV" to that statement, and it would describe the current automotive market in the U.S. accurately.

[DeluxeStang]

This isn't really a red vs blue issue. More of an urban vs rural issue. Utah, which is one of the most conservative states, but also one of the fast growing urban environments, is experiencing a boom in EV adoption lately. Many rural areas just don't have the infrastructure to support mass EV adoption at this moment in time. It just so happens that many of those areas tend to lean conservative. But the criticisms are valid, and not that political in nature. Making it about politics is avoiding the real problem. 

[silvrsvt]

27 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

. But the criticisms are valid, and not that political in nature. Making it about politics is avoiding the real problem. 

 

The issue is that it gets dumbed down so it is about politics, because its far easier to blame X then admit its a complex problem and X is taking something away from them, without any effort or thought for why it happening. The internet makes it far easier to complain about it (imange what would be happening with the clean air act or CAFE implementations almost 50 years ago if the internet was around in its current form) and it seems like social media arthrograms focus on the the extreme ends of things just keep engagement up.  

 

I have a couple acquaintances that are vehemently against EVs, just because they are "different" then what they are used to using. I see this all the time working in the IT industry to...but sometimes they (IT industry) just changes things just to change them, without any real improvements too.  

[akirby]

25 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

This isn't really a red vs blue issue. More of an urban vs rural issue. Utah, which is one of the most conservative states, but also one of the fast growing urban environments, is experiencing a boom in EV adoption lately. Many rural areas just don't have the infrastructure to support mass EV adoption at this moment in time. It just so happens that many of those areas tend to lean conservative. But the criticisms are valid, and not that political in nature. Making it about politics is avoiding the real problem. 

There is definitely a huge red vs blue issue just as he described - I see it every day.  One group thinks BEVs will save the planet and the other thinks they’re nothing but a political mandate.  No different than most other issues.

[ZanatWork]

I agree with politicization, to a degree, because the vehicle ARE being mandated along the granola coast and in increasing numbers of countries...before the tech is really a full-on replacement for ICE.

I am definitely among those that wonder why I'd ever take orders from "representatives" that supposedly work for...us...?

That said, with inconsistent charging stations, various tech gremlins, and the other (slow charging, expense, etc) issues that plague even fully-functional examples, I'm certainly not sold, yet.

[tbone]

There is certainly a political aspect to it, as I am one of those not in favor of any kind of mandate, but he is glossing over the fact there are a number of aspects related to BEVs that do not lend themselves to mass adoption at this time, which have been discussed here ad nauseum.  

[akirby]

33 minutes ago, tbone said:

There is certainly a political aspect to it, as I am one of those not in favor of any kind of mandate, but he is glossing over the fact there are a number of aspects related to BEVs that do not lend themselves to mass adoption at this time, which have been discussed here ad nauseum.  

Nowhere did Bill Ford say it was ONLY a political issue. Nor did he say or imply there weren’t other impediments to widespread adoption.  He just said it’s become politicized  by some and that price is a problem.  All of which is true and doesn’t negate the other problems.

[silvrsvt]

54 minutes ago, ZanatWork said:

I agree with politicization, to a degree, because the vehicle ARE being mandated along the granola coast and in increasing numbers of countries...before the tech is really a full-on replacement for ICE.

 

But the full on replacement (well not being able to buy a replacement ICE product) of most ICE products is still at least 12 years from now also.

 

Given the fact that the average age of a car in the USA at least is 12 years old, that process is going to take a long time. 

 

Battery pricing is coming down and by the start of 2030, there will be enough production of batteries to meet at least 3/4 of all new vehicle production in North America. 

 

The conversion over to EVs isn't going to be as fast as people think it might take and the pricing issues should ease as time goes on. 

 

The government is pushing the conversion because its better to start now then wait 12 years when the mandates start biting. 

[DeluxeStang]

2 hours ago, akirby said:

There is definitely a huge red vs blue issue just as he described - I see it every day.  One group thinks BEVs will save the planet and the other thinks they’re nothing but a political mandate.  No different than most other issues.

There are definitely political extremists on both sides who believe that, but that's a small percentage of total voters. Most sensible conservatives and liberals I've talked to agree that EVs have a lot of potential, and will generally be good thing long term. But have a lot of quirks and shortcomings that need to be addressed before they're ready for mass adoption. 

 

It's kinda like how you have some people who want us to rush into war everytime something bad happens in Europe or the Middle East. Others want us to have a completely isolationist mentality. But most want us to assist those in need, but within reason. 

[tbone]

22 minutes ago, akirby said:

Nowhere did Bill Ford say it was ONLY a political issue. Nor did he say or imply there weren’t other impediments to widespread adoption.  He just said it’s become politicized  by some and that price is a problem.  All of which is true and doesn’t negate the other problems.

I don’t think I said only.  

[akirby]

8 minutes ago, tbone said:

I don’t think I said only.  

You implied it when you said he glossed over the other issues.  He wasn’t using it to explain why sales were slow.  He was just making observations.

[bzcat]

You know it is politicized when 50% increase year over year is brushed off, and 25% market share in leading indicator markets like California is dismissed as a "granola coast" mandate. You see it in this thread. 

 

Politicized is a nice way of saying ignoring empirical evidence. Just go down the list of all the hot button politicized issues in the US... one side is ignoring science or empirical evidence and trying to gaslight the other side. Calling something a "mandate" is an easy way to tell someone is not interested in a public policy discussion based on facts. I too bemoan the fact that our government has mandated school shootings. See how that works?

 

I got an EV because it makes a lot of sense for how we use that car. It's probably true the car won't exist if not for Govt incentives for manufacturers to make it. But it is the same thing for ICE vehicles. Do you think SUV will rule the roads today if not for Sec 179 tax deduction favoring heavy vehicles and CAFE rule that favors longer/wider vehicles? Sure, one of them is a "mandate" but the other is just sensible Govt policy?

[silvrsvt]

1 hour ago, bzcat said:

I got an EV because it makes a lot of sense for how we use that car. It's probably true the car won't exist if not for Govt incentives for manufacturers to make it. But it is the same thing for ICE vehicles. Do you think SUV will rule the roads today if not for Sec 179 tax deduction favoring heavy vehicles and CAFE rule that favors longer/wider vehicles? Sure, one of them is a "mandate" but the other is just sensible Govt policy?

 

But the vast majority of SUVs don't meet the Tax write off either...your talking G Wagon type SUVs. I don't see people getting that tax writeoff for a Navigator

 

 

[Rangers09]

4 hours ago, ZanatWork said:

I agree with politicization, to a degree, because the vehicle ARE being mandated along the granola coast and in increasing numbers of countries...before the tech is really a full-on replacement for ICE.

I am definitely among those that wonder why I'd ever take orders from "representatives" that supposedly work for...us...?

That said, with inconsistent charging stations, various tech gremlins, and the other (slow charging, expense, etc) issues that plague even fully-functional examples, I'm certainly not sold, yet.

 

In Canada, it is also becoming political, with the Govt encouraging consumers to move to PHEV/BEV. However, this is the same Govt that 10-year ago paid us to rip out electric heat and install gas furnaces. Now, in addition to pushing PHEV/BEV, they also pay us to rip out those nice almost new gas furnaces and replace them with electric heat pumps. So, how long until they change their mind again and jump on another bandwagon.

 

From both Provincial & Federal Govts, we received $7,000 to purchase a PHEV, but had we opted for a BEV it would have been $9,000. This isn't tax rebates, this is real cash, which the dealer claims directly from the Govt, as the purchase price is reduced when we pick up the vehicle. Based on the well publicised issues with BEV's - limited range, range reducing when using heater, heated seat/steering wheel, charging time, limited network of operational chargers, high cost, etc it just wasn't worth the risk of purchasing a BEV, to received a measly additional $2K from the Govt.

 

Mind you, if the Govt offered to double the BEV rebate to $14K, I still wouldn't purchase one, as they don't meet our needs. The Govt may be pushing us to purchase BEV's, but as consumers, we still have the right to decide what meets our needs. The PHEV meets our needs perfectly, running around town on electric and having the engine for road trips. Bonus, the Govt provided $7k, which isn't even declared as income. Even without the Govt rebate, we may have purchased a PHEV, but the ROI would have been much longer.

[Footballfan]

8 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

These 2 points from Bill Ford corroborate what Jim Farley said last year about the ongoing transition to BEV.

 

 

 

 

Jim Farley could add the phrase "So much faster than the politicization of BEV" to that statement, and it would describe the current automotive market in the U.S. accurately.

Tesla is like any other high tech start up- people bid the stock to crazy levels.  The liquidation value of Tesla is probably about 5 or 6 percent if it's market cap. Tesla is a bubble waiting to burst. 

[silvrsvt]

10 minutes ago, Footballfan said:

Tesla is like any other high tech start up- people bid the stock to crazy levels.  The liquidation value of Tesla is probably about 5 or 6 percent if it's market cap. Tesla is a bubble waiting to burst. 

 

That has been going on for years and still hasn't happened...and with them becoming the defacto charging standard, I don't see that happening anytime soon. 

[Footballfan]

7 hours ago, akirby said:

There is definitely a huge red vs blue issue just as he described - I see it every day.  One group thinks BEVs will save the planet and the other thinks they’re nothing but a political mandate.  No different than most other issues.

EVs are just another thing that is dividing this nation.  There are hundreds of things that lead to the extreme polarization we see today- and the politicians grab any chance they can to divide this nation. 

[akirby]

16 minutes ago, Footballfan said:

EVs are just another thing that is dividing this nation.  There are hundreds of things that lead to the extreme polarization we see today- and the politicians grab any chance they can to divide this nation. 

And so much of it fueled by misinformation and lies perpetuated by social media.

[mackinaw]

1 hour ago, Footballfan said:

Tesla is like any other high tech start up- people bid the stock to crazy levels.  The liquidation value of Tesla is probably about 5 or 6 percent if it's market cap. Tesla is a bubble waiting to burst. 

 

Not with 18% margins they aren't. With margins like that, Tesla is the envy of the industry.

[jpd80]

The reason that the “Tesla bubble” hasn’t Burst yet  is because other manufacturers simply can’t compete and until that changes, Tesla has the field to itself.

Edited October 19, 2023 by jpd80

[rperez817]

6 hours ago, bzcat said:

You know it is politicized when 50% increase year over year is brushed off

 

Fortunately neither Bill Ford nor Jim Farley are brushing off the exponential growth of BEV. Regardless of any political football, if Ford wants to be a player in the automotive industry of the future, it must be steadfast in its commitment transitioning to an all-electric vehicle lineup. Ford set an internal goal of year 2035 for that in "major markets", but with the growth rate for BEV nowadays (as Bill Ford mentioned), that date will probably be pushed closer to 2030 as new BEV focused facilities like Blue Oval City commence operations.

[rmc523]

16 hours ago, mackinaw said:

 

Not with 18% margins they aren't. With margins like that, Tesla is the envy of the industry.

 

Tesla's net income slumped 44% in Q3 as its price cuts ate into profits - Autoblog

 

The latest round of cost cutting trimmed Tesla’s operating margin, which represents how efficiently sales are turned into pretax profits, down to 7.6% in the third quarter. That’s down from 17.2% a year earlier. The measure also declined sharply in the first two quarters of this year.

[Rick73]

22 hours ago, akirby said:

You implied it when you said he glossed over the other issues.  He wasn’t using it to explain why sales were slow.  He was just making observations.

I respectfully disagree.  When a person is a company CEO, or is named Ford, nothing they say in public knowing it will be reported is just what it appears.  Farley and Ford know exactly what they are trying to control or influence with every word.  I have my personal take on comments but will keep to myself.

[akirby]

1 hour ago, rmc523 said:

 

Tesla's net income slumped 44% in Q3 as its price cuts ate into profits - Autoblog

 

The latest round of cost cutting trimmed Tesla’s operating margin, which represents how efficiently sales are turned into pretax profits, down to 7.6% in the third quarter. That’s down from 17.2% a year earlier. The measure also declined sharply in the first two quarters of this year.

That 15% or 17% margin was due to price increases made possible by Covid/supply chain issues and inflation (just like ford and the other) and almost no direct competition.   That’s all changing.  Let’s not forget they were still losing money up until a couple of years ago (despite what one person will claim).